Dear xxxx,

The comprehensive Jewish perspective on anything encompasses both the historical proofs of scientific evidence, known as 'secular knowledge', and knowledge provided to us in Talmudic and Kabbalistic information.

Often, secular knowledge is not accurate because by ignoring religious knowledge, incorrect inferences are made, as we find with this silly notion that Hebrew originated with Aramaic.

The Talmud states that the Hebrew letter forms are of Divine origin, unlike the languages and letter sets of all the other nations of the world. Anyone who has studied Hebrew grammar sees clearly that Hebrew is a pure mathematical and extremely logical language. Its letter forms are like fascinating pieces of artwork. Each letter thoughtfully designed, and is embued with rich numerical meanings.

Let's look at the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, or aleph beis אלף בית. This letter is called, א. It is called by this name, because the first Hebrew letter represents the Premier Force of the Universe, אלופו של עולם. Why?

Let's investigate.

The 'aleph' א has three pieces two 'yuhd'-like י shapes on the upper right, and the lower left (reversed both horizontally and vertically), and the 'vov'-like ו shaped in the middle.

These shapes represent G-d Above (the yuhd-like י shape on the upper right - yuhd י equals ten, for the ten Sephirot or Divine Attributes), human being below (the yuhd-like י shape on the bottom left - yuhd י equals ten, for the ten corresponding Midot מידות, or Attributes), and in the middle, connecting the top and the bottom is the vov-like ו shaped in the middle, which equal six.

All together, the three parts of the 'aleph' א equals twenty-six, which is the holy Name of G-d י-הוה (which we do not spell out, or pronounce). So, we see that the aleph א in deed represents G-d, the Premier Force of the Universe, אלופו של עולם.

Regards,

Israel

PS I seek to post this, as it addresses a basic point about the origins of Hebrew.

=================

Hello,

I was reading an article which was basing much of it's information on Wikipedia articles, so I wanted to reach out to someone who might be more knowledgeable. I had an email correspondence with your friend xxxxx about it, as I had also recently learned of him (through the AIGA article). I'd like to know your (more religious) thoughts.

The article (Smashing Magazine: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/06/22/the-beauty-of-typography-writ...) states that the Hebrew alphabet is a descendant of the Aramaic, which is itself a descendant of the Phonecian alphabet. Since there are so many laws surrounding the writing of the Torah, in that it must be copied from another scroll, wouldn't that make the Hebrew alphabet at the latest from year ~1300 BCE? Wouldn't that predate Aramaic by ~300 years, as well as make it about/at least as old as the Phonecian alphabet?

Scott's response was that the laws surrounding the writing of a Torah scroll cropped up later in history, such that it's possible original scrolls were written with different typefaces.

Given the divine nature of Hebrew, it would be my thought that Aramaic and Phonecian are derivatives of Hebrew - but maybe the Divine Hebrew letters had different forms than what we use today?

If you could shed some light on this, I'd appreciate it!

regards,

xxxx

Hi Israel,

Thanks for the reply! I was unaware of all the kabbalistic reasoning behind the forms of the letters as we have them. I did know that R" Akiva would "darshan on the crowns of the letters of the torah" and assumed the letters as we have them are of divine origin, which is why I was surprised by the original article.

Of course, there are always holes in science when there is inaccurate or undiscovered information, but I was surprised at the statement that Hebrew originated from Aramaic. Also, I thought it could simply be a "labeling" issue - maybe what's referred to as North Semitic (which I've not seen any inscriptions/writings of) might actually be Hebrew...

regards,

>> I was unaware of all the kabbalistic reasoning behind the forms of the letters as we have them...

Actually, what I mentioned earlier about the aleph's א numerical association with the Divinity, by investigating the aleph's א graphic parts is but a tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The very shapes of the Hebrew letters contain much meaning. These insights are not only derived from its shapes and positions, but they are also discovered from the shapes and positions of their white or empty places.

For example, the basic difference between the chet ח and the hei ה is the small empty space on the left hand upper vertical bar, as if to allow air to be expressed. Similarly, the sound associated with the chet ח is guteral, while the sound associated with the hei ה is soft and airy.

When Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest Torah scholars of all times, expounded the meanings of the crowns on the Hebrew letters in the Torah scroll, G-d Al-mighty and his faithful servant Moses listened intently too. Moses began to weep, as he was not privy to this information.

G-d consoled Moses, by explaining that even these esoteric lessons were derived from the Torah of Moses, as we say: "כל מה שתלמיד ותיק נחדש בתורה, נתחדש בתורה ממשה מסיני" "Everything derived by a great Torah scholar was in deed derived from the Torah of Moses at Sinai".

Each letter contains amazing insights that defy human reason, and the very language itself is super-rational, proving to anyone who has a brain in his or her head, that Hebrew was not a human invention, like all the other languages of the world.

>The Talmud states that the Hebrew letter forms are of Divine origin, unlike the languages and letter sets of all the other nations of the world.

Could you give the citation, Israel?

I know it says in Avot 5:9 that writing was invented by God, but nothing about Hebrew there.

William,

I began to research the subject already; I will provide you with both citations and pertinent selected texts in English. Most sources are in Hebrew only.

Avot is 5:6.

Many commentators say that this refers to (a) the engravings on the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, in which the letter forms were engraved through the entire stone tablets, from one side to another, and to (b) the content of those engravings, ie. the Ten Commandments.

Perhaps, we shall discuss this first.

But clearly you see from these two citings, ie. the Medrashic teaching about Moses viewing Rabbi Akiva's analysis of the meaning of the taggim, or crowns, upon certain Hebrew letters in a Torah scroll, and the discussion of Avot, based upon sources in the Holy Scripture, about the engraved Hebrew letterforms, that Aramaic was NOT the source for the Hebrew alphabet.

Both Moses and the Tablets, and Rabbi Akiva, lived prior to the invention of Aramaic.

Second, Avot declares that the Hebrew letters engraved on the Tablets were "created" on the eve of the first Sabbath, when the entire world was created.

Now, we clearly see that it is silly to link the origins of Hebrew letters to Aramaic.

In Avot 5:5, ten entities are listed that preceded creation. The last three concern us here.

8. The writing of the Torah Scroll
9. The inscription on the Tablets
10. The very Tablets themselves

This is discussed in the Bible, Exodus 32:16; see Nachmonides' comments there.

Exodus 32:16
"The Tablets were a work of G-d; the writing (upon them) was the Writing of G-d, engraved upon (or through) the Tablets".

See Maimonides' comments on Avot 5:5, in his Commentary on the Mishnah. The Moznaim Publishers of NY and Jerusalem has an English-Hebrew edition, available from www.eichers.com.

His comments in the Introduction to his Mishnah Torah, in the very beginning, elaborate upon this.

Apparently, William, you have "Sayings of the Fathers" by Rabbi Dr. Joseph H. Hertz zal, the former Chief Rabbi of England, published by Behrman House, which places this teaching on Avot 5:9. See his comments there on pp. 88-89.

The letters themselves existed miraculously. Even though they were engraved from one side to another, they appeared in the correct order on both sides - not humanly possible.

The Talmud states that there are two styles of Hebrew type design. One kind is reserved for the Torah scroll, and holy writing. The other kind is used for common discussions.

Even in the printing of the Talmud itself, two styles are common. The main text appears in classic square letters, like Bodoni in Hebrew. Commentaries are traditionally typeset in a script-like type design, known as Rashi letters.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we also find a similar trait. Scriptures are typeset in a classic typeface, while other texts describing laws and customs are typeset differently.

Furthermore, Frederick Goudy, the famous American type designer, writes the Mr. Romm senior traveled from Vilna, Lithuania, to Italy,, to commission students of by Giambattista Bodoni (1740–1813) [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodoni ]to master and cut Hebrew typefaces for his illustrious printing house based upon ancient (Sephardic) drawings of Hebrew square letters.

So, we see that the classic square letters of Vilna were Sephardic in origin. This was later confirmed by the contemporary type designer, John Hudson, in discussing his work known as 'Adobe Hebrew'.

Hence, from the Dead Sea Scrolls' images, and from Frederick Goudy's account, the classic Hebrew letter forms were not at all similar to the Aramaic alphabet, or even to the Assyrian script.

Today, many Arabic letters share similar names as their Hebrew counterparts. Only a fool would suggest that the design found in block Hebrew letters compare to the design of Arabic script, which is like swift handwriting.

To see an explicit description of the Divine origins of the Hebrew letters, see Nachmonides' comments in the beginning of the book of Exodus, parshat Ki Tissa, cited earlier.

This appears in English by ArtScroll (www.artscroll.com).

See "Ahrachim", Volume Letters, by Kehos (www.kehotonline.com), p. 14, B. Their Form

Arachim, p. 14
B. Their Form

"The t'muna, picture or image, of the letters is from a 'halacha to Moses on Mt. Sinai.'"

This is a standard Talmudic phrase regarding an issue of Biblical measures, even superior to them, for Moses heard it directly from G-d Al-mighty.

"Each letter form is relative to the spiritual chemestry of a different supernal dimension, or world".

See there, and refer to its comprehensive footnotes.

Hence, we see that the model for the Hebrew letter forms are rooted in lofty spiritual levels which existed prior to our world as we know it, ie. in Divinity itself.

clarification

>> In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we also find a similar trait. Scriptures are typeset in a classic typeface, while other texts describing laws and customs are typeset differently.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not typeset in modern sense by machines. Rather, the letters were hand-drawn or scribed manually.

Even though human hands scribed these works, as well as other scrolls and books, elaborately, and not as mere scribbling or handwriting. Type designs existed much before the invention of movable type and the printing press by Gutenberg, and those little known who preceded him.

Israel, there is no single standard numbering for Avot. The way it is usually numbered in the Siddur and the way it is numbered in the Mishnah is different. I was using the Siddur numbering above.

Though that mishnah is clearly talking about the Decalogue or "Ten Commmandments" in Avot, it doesn't say that the language was Hebrew. I take "ketav" to mean "script", with no particular script necessarily meant. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Rabbis discuss in the Talmud whether the Decalogue was in an Egyptian dialect, which Moses may have spoken, as the Sages knew that Hebrew was the language of Canaan. (Sorry I don't have the citation.) Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews in Egypt, may have spoken Aramaic at home, as he came originally from Babylonia, even though he spent a long time in Canaan.

As as liberal Jew, I'm sure my standards for judging these things are going to be very different from yours, so I doubt this is worth going into further. I'm willing to accept some divine inspiration for writing, but doubt that any particular script is privileged.

What do you mean by Hebrew writing in the context of this discussion? The typical Semitic alphabet, or the actual letter shapes? And if the shapes, then which shapes?

According to http://www.mezuzah.net/scripts.html, the talmud tells that the "ktav ashuri" (the "assyrian script") is to be used for mezuzot, tefilin and sifrei torah; the same site shows a sample of "ktav ivri", "hebrew script", which was quite different, and in common usage during the period of the first temple. Interestingly enough, in this text from the dead sea scrolls, http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_psalm138.html, the tetragrammon is written with a variant of the "ktav ivri" (called "middle hebrew" by the author of the site) whereas the rest of the text is not.

It is also interesting to compare the "ktav ivri" of http://www.mezuzah.net/scripts.html to the phoenician alphabet, unicode range 10900-1091F, http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10900.pdf.

Well, I view the stuff that Israel talked about in another thread, and is raising again here as "aggadah", stories in Jewish tradition that can be moving, entertaining, or annoying, depending, but not to be taken seriously as literal truths that are a basis for any decision. This is actually the traditional attitude toward them, but not of some mystics and Chassids, like Israel.

So for example there's the story that "truth" in Hebrew, emet (aleph, mem, tav) is solid as the letters all stand on a stable base, where as "lie" in Hebrew sheker (shin, kof, resh), stand on one leg, and so are unstable—so that the truth will stand and a lie fall down.

I view this as a nice homily—well not that great, if you want to know the truth, as some lies seem to do pretty well—but not to be taken as some literal divine message about either letter shapes or morals.

If you bring in history and get real about the history of script, as Michel does, I'm with you, but I don't think Israel is interested in that. The irony is that the Sages were sometimes interested in the history.

The interesting thing about the mention of the writing, stylus and tablets in Avot 5:9, is that it's to me an attempt of the Rabbis to reconcile the Hebrew Bible with the Greek concept of the "cosmos", a world ordered by natural law. They were disturbed by the events contrary to the order of nature—one kind of miracle in the Torah—in light of the Greek concept, and so said that everything contrary to natural law was actually created in the last moment of twilight before the world was finished, and the first Shabbat began. These miracles include the ten commandments to be discovered by Moses, which this story puts there from the beginning of time—writing, the stylus, and the tablets. At least that's my interpretation. You'll get a different story from Israel :)

William, apparently, the Mishnah's system is most accurate, and later discrepentcies resulted from printers' errors. Do you agree?

I never heard that the Ten Commandments were in any other language besides Hebrew, except in a Cecille B. Damille movie staring the late Charleton Heston playing Moses.

A Reform rabbi advised Damille.

The Talmud says in a few places that it was in Hebrew. This is elaborated from the above book by Rabbi Yoel Kahan Shlita. "Hebrew words are loftier than Hebrew letter forms." In fact, the specific pronunciation through a Hebrew words' vowels is even higher.

Of course, I refer not to physical height or distance, as Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz/Even Yisroel Shlita explains in English in his profound book, "The Four Worlds", available from http://www.barnesandnoble.com.

There, he explains that these kabbalistic terms refer to dimensions in space, as discussed in literature of Modern Physics.

Do we have any parallel iin Reform Judaism literature, William?

If you one day find a source for Cecille B. Damille's depiction, please share it with me.

>> Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews in Egypt, may have spoken Aramaic at home, as he came originally from Babylonia, even though he spent a long time in Canaan.

This is incorrect.

At that time in Mesopotania, Aramaic did not exist yet. During the Temple and Talmudic period, it was invented.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia.

>> As as liberal Jew, I'm sure my standards for judging these things are going to be very different from yours, so I doubt this is worth going into further. I'm willing to accept some divine inspiration for writing, but doubt that any particular script is privileged.

William, I too am a liberal Jew. I was raised in a Reform Judaism home. I believe in social equality and other liberal causes like you.

Let's not judge anything. Look at the facts. A famous Jewish principle comments that a difference of opinion can not apply to facts.

Unfortunately, blindly believing that no "particular script is privileged" is naive and ignores reality.

Like the assimilated Jews in Germany, the birthplace of the roots of Reform Judaism, these people also naively thought that German culture would never produce a mass genocide, for the Jewish culture would melt in, like butter in a pot (sic).

But their wishful thinking did not stop the Holocaust, denied now by so many.

Wake up, spell the coffee. Be a proud Jew, and embrace authentic Judaism.

>> What do you mean by Hebrew writing in the context of this discussion? The typical Semitic alphabet, or the actual letter shapes? And if the shapes, then which shapes?

John, Hebrew writing encompasses two facets. (a) the intellectual content articulated by words and thoughts, like chanting or meditating. (b) the images associated with each Hebrew letter, and its form.

The text above explains that each Hebrew letter uniquely portrays a different "world".

Btw, hi John, it was a long haul to hell and back! Your prayers helped. :)

>> According to...

Michel,

Clearly, one depiction is correct, for we see it in every Mezuzah, Tefillin, and Torah scroll, for the last 3,300 years about.

Ktav Ivrit is not a fixed design, as we see different designs in different typefaces, drawings, manuscripts and scrolls.

In fact, the design portrayed there is the least documented, or even never documented.

I think Cecille believed that one. :)

>> Well, I view...

William, let's focus on type design.

1. What are the ramifications to Hebrew type design as we practice it, if they indeed have a divine origin?

2. Can we incorporate these divine lessons to improve Hebrew type design?

3. Can these rules of improvement be applied to other letter sets of different languages.

You may well be right about Aramaic not being the language of Abraham, according to what I now read on the wikipedia article "Akkadian" it could be that the language called "Old Babylonian" or "Old Assyrian", the language of Hammurabi, if the usual dates of Abraham—around 1700 BCE are correct. It's a Semitic language, but not Hebrew (or Aramaic).

However Torah itself calls Jacob, grandchild of Abraham an Aramean, in the passage (Deut. 26:5) discussed in the Haggadah: "arami oved avi" "A wandering Aramean was my father." According to the wikipedia on the Arameans they go back to 1900 BCE, so maybe the Torah is right—I'm surprised you contradict it :)

(I know there's another reading, but still...)

According to the article on Aramaic, you are not correct that Aramaic was invented during the Temple period. It was current in Babylonia in 1200, BCE, roughly the time of Moses, and several hundred years before Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem.

I don't know that the numbering in the Mishnah is more accurate, though I haven't studied this and am not sure. The version of Avot in the Siddur I am guessing goes back to the Mahzor Vitry, and the manuscripts are of it are of approximately equal antiquity to the manuscripts of the Mishnah. Also the wording of Avot was unfortunately not kept with the same care as the Torah, and there are minor variations from manuscript to manuscript.

So I think neither are entirely reliable. There is a recent scholarly work on the text of Avot, in Hebrew, but I haven't looked at it, and my Hebrew is alas not that good in any case.

More later...

Pretty much every literate culture in the world seems to have some kind of myth of divine or mystical origin for its writing system. I take this simply as indicative of just how important and all-changing the introduction of writing is to any society: it is one of those few key changes -- like the advent of agriculture or metallurgy -- that transform almost every aspect of a society. And hence it gets recorded in the most important stories that a society tells to itself that help make sense of its experience. The ancient Egyptians, for example, considered writing to have been invented by the Ibis-headed god Thoth. The Greeks believed that writing was invented by the semi-mythological prince of Tyre, Cadmus, and Greek mystic tradition linked the invention of the alphabet to Cadmus' sowing of the dragon's teeth that grew up to become an army, recognising the power of literacy to marshall and regulate a society.

The earliest known forms of Hebrew letters are completely indistinguishable in their typical shapes from those used to write Canaanite and other languages. Only the language of the text written makes it possible to speak of 'Hebrew' writing as something distinct: the shapes are common to all contemporary literate cultures of the region. Some of the earliest fragments of writing from ancient Canaan are apparently so small -- on broken shards of pottery -- that it isn't possible to determine the language, and hence it isn't possible to determine if this is Hebrew writing or the writing of some other language that used the same letters.

Israel, I'm not finding any speculation on whether the script on the tablets was not Hebrew. But there is a discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud (Meg. 1:11 71c) on it being in the ancient Hebrew script, not the currently used "ketav ashuri", the Assyrian script. The rabbis of the Talmud were well aware that the current script was not the original, and they ascribed the adoption of the current, very different script, which originated in Babylonia, where they had been exiled, to Ezra.

The point is, even if you read Avot 5:9 as claiming that God invented the script on the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, and it was Hebrew, it wouldn't have been our current script.

I believe, but I don't have the reference that the Rabbis were aware that Hebrew was originally the language of Canaan, as John notes, and it wouldn't have been Abraham's mother tongue.

Thank you John! What is this... my alphabet is better than your alphabet?

>my alphabet is better than your alphabet

Well, that's Israel's view. I think it's not justified even by Talmudic standards, aside from its being silly and a bit offensive.

As to the awe people have for writing, and John's other stories of divine origin. For me personally I see some divinity in human creativity, so I'm willing to go there in saying that the invention of written language, including alphabetic scripts, has some divine inspiration. But narrowing it to one particular script seems to me, well, narrow.

I'm all for giving the ancient Hebrews the credit where it's due, such as for the invention of the Sabbath (or discovering God's will concerning the Sabbath, if you want to put it the Orthodox Jewish way, as Israel would.)

But as for the invention of writing, it just won't fly. According to what I have read, the invention of alphabetic language is probably a result of simplification of a version of a version of hieroglyphics known as hieratic script. And both hieroglyphics and cuneiform were around for a thousand years before alphabetic scripts. And Chinese script evolves on a separate track.

Also personally, I find the "solution" to the problem of Biblical miracles in Avot 5:9 pretty weak. It's something like the late 19th century theory that God put created the world in six days with dinosaur bones in the ground. Clever, but not credible.

I would like to think such a wonderful gift (all alphabets) are divinely inspired through the hand of man. But to assume one is greater than the other is balderdash. G-d bless the alphabet for its ability to disseminate the word. Let it be less used for agenda. Thank you William. Congrats on Caslon. Just shy of divinely inspired :-)

typerror >>>my alphabet is better than your alphabet

William >>> Well, that's Israel's view.

Excuse me. What a big misread.

typerror, perhaps you and Bill can rename yourselves as misread1 and misread2.

Divine or human origin is NOT a qualitative judgment.

Jews have 613 instructions, but gentiles have only the seven Noachide rules. No one is better or worst. In a way, Jews have over many more chances to screw up!

The three questions presented earlier explain why origins matter.

=========

gohebrew
13.Jul.2010 8.31pm

I repeat them:

1. What are the ramifications to Hebrew type design as we practice it, if they indeed have a divine origin?

2. Can we incorporate these divine lessons to improve Hebrew type design?

3. Can these rules of improvement be applied to other letter sets of different languages?

To clarify, everything in this and every world indeed stems from G-d.

Some things are direct results from Divine causes, and other things are indirect.

G-d left the world in an imperfect or incomplete state, known as 'tikkun olam'. All major tracks within Judaism accept the duty of 'tikkun olam'. It's just defined differently.

G-d gave directions about how to complete the job, and singled out a nation, its language, and alphabet, to guide people to the right goal.

No one is grading anyone else or belittling other nations, languages, and alphabets.

L'chayim.

G-d gave directions about how to complete the job, and singled out a nation, its language, and alphabet, to guide people to the right goal.

By this very statement you are making my point!

Cheers :-)

It's the bottom of the ninth inning and the score is 613 to 7. Looks like a blowout by the Jews :-) Come on Israel, fess up to it!

Every post I have seen by you is agenda driven!!!!!

Israel, I'm sorry if I misread you, but I read you to say that the shapes of the current Hebrew alphabet (derived from Aramaic) are divine, and the shapes of no other writing system is directly from divine causes. Do I have that wrong?

Also I am doubtful that you can find any Jewish source before the middle ages that says such a thing. [The story of Rabbi Akiva interpreting the 'et' (direct object indicator) and the crowns (tagim) on letters is not a claim for the special sanctity of the script, but of the actual writing in the Torah.]

Michael, thanks!

As to any divinity in the shapes, I think this is only in so far as they relate to the human eye-brain combination, assuming we are created ultimately by God. —The way we behave, though, there is room for doubt! I would look first to our perceptual apparatus, and not mystics from any religion, for clues on type design. But if you have some ideas from the mystics, my mind is open, tell me about it.

Let me meditate.

Nam yo ho ringay kiyo.

Herbert Schwartz, down on 5th an New York, just spoke to me out of nowhere, he said malarkey. :-)

Sorry Israel :-( There is no other way to respond to this than the other great gift G-d gave us, humour!

>>> G-d gave directions about how to complete the job, and singled out a nation, its language, and alphabet, to guide people to the right goal.

By this very statement you are making my point!

>>> It's the bottom of the ninth inning and the score is 613 to 7. Looks like a blowout by the Jews :-) Come on Israel, fess up to it!

Every post I have seen by you is agenda driven!

===

Michael,

Thank you for sharing your views. But with all due respect, I differ.

If I was a shrinkk, I would advise you that you have poor self-esteem.

A person suffers from poor self-esteem when he thinks others feel they are better than him.

According to Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twersky, most people suffer from poor self-esteem.

Again, attributing the Divine to one thing and not to another does NOT indicate that the former is superior, or "beats", the other.

Life is a bit more complex.

Jews do not believe in homogenized "ticky-tacky" people, all the same as each other.

Life is in living color, and not in monochrome. If it were all the same and monotone, it'd be really boring.

Is Herbert at ITC?

Israel, let me try to answer your three questions.

1. What are the ramifications to Hebrew type design as we practice it, if they indeed have a divine origin?

That it should be practised with great care, attention to quality in even the smallest detail; that our types should reflect the Lord's glory in both their beauty and utility.

Now, I don't think one needs a theology of Hebrew writing in order to come to that conclusion about any script. A theology of creation is all you need. William writes that he sees ‘some divinity in human creativity’, and hence acknowledges that the invention of all human writing has some divine origin. I'd agree with that in terms of a general theology of creation. As a Catholic, I have a more specific theology of creation that all things are created through Christ in whom, as Saint Paul has it, ‘we live and move and have our being’, and that there is nothing without the continued will of God that it should be so. That is my theological tradition, and hence it informs my thinking about creativity, as do, for example, ideas that derive from that tradition such as the Thomistic tradition of in the philosophy of art, particularly as expressed in the writings of Jacques Maritain and my beloved David Jones.

But given even the most general theology of creation, I don't see how one can arrive at any other conclusion than that all human creativity should be guided by the criteria I suggest above: care, attention to detail, beauty and utility, etc..

And maybe your ideas about the origin of the Hebrew script and about the interpretation of its forms might lead you to conclude that only an approach to Hebrew typeface design that incorporates these ideas is valid, that approaches that ignore these ideas are not proper. At that point, polite disagreement might be the only thing left in terms of dialogue with a lot of other Hebrew type designers. For me, it is in an important sense moot, because I'm of the view that when it comes to creative acts what matters is the thing made, not the things that went through the maker's mind while he was creating it.

2. Can we incorporate these divine lessons to improve Hebrew type design?

This depends what you mean by lessons. Even if the Hebrew letters -- and again, which forms: the early, pre-exilic forms? the post-exilic square script forms? the special forms used in the sefer scrolls? -- were of direct divine origin, made by God and gifted to His chosen people, I would still see a distinction between those forms and the interpretation of their meaning within e.g. particular mystic traditions.

Now, that interpretation is obviously going to be significant to an adherent of that tradition. So perhaps the question to ask is how to incorporate these ‘divine lessons’, as you see them in a kabbalistic tradition for example, in your typeface design. I'm obviously not an adherent of that tradition -- and, as I understand it, neither are very large numbers of Jews --, so for me the question is academic. In my experience, all sorts of complex cultural ideas can be expressed in the form of typography, so I don't doubt that you can find a way to incorporate the ideas of kabbala as they relate to letter shapes in your type design.

3. Can these rules of improvement be applied to other letter sets of different languages?

From my answers to the first two questions you can probably guess that I will arrive at two answers to this third question:

a) What holds true for Hebrew type design holds true for all creative acts: they should reflect God's glory in the way that His creation does. Even if the Hebrew script were in some way ‘special’ in terms of its divine origin, would we be able to treat it any differently in type design than we treat any other script.

b) If a script is culturally associated with particular traditions of understanding, then obviously it is likely to express those traditions more easily than a foreign script would. Sometimes, a cultural idea can find idiomatic expression in a foreign script, but very often what results is a kind of pastiche that does not honour the idea, but deforms or debases it. Think, for example, about Latin display fonts that try to look ‘Asian’ by incorporating some evocative shapes that encourage designers to use them in signage for Chinese restaurants. So I'm wary about such things. On the other hand, if an individual type design inhabits more than one culture then I can imagine how he or she might, over time, find ways to express the ideas of one culture within the formal structures of another.

PS. In your questions, you move from ‘divine origins’ to ‘divine lessons’ to ‘rules’. There are a lot of steps missing along the way, so the latter two questions presume, I think, the particular significance and approaches of specific hermeneutic traditions. That's fair enough, in that you obviously are deeply embedded in these traditions, but you should recognise that much of what you presume to be the case remains open to question for other people.

Israel,

I have a short question for you. If the origins of the current square Hebrew alphabet are indeed divine, are we not committing an act against God by using it in such a colloquial manner? If the letters are of holy origin, and contain within them a spark of the divine, should they be employed in the marketing and sale of various products and services—anything from the latest Hollywood vampire blockbuster, to erotic gay services on the web? (I don't mean to offend, just to make a point)

I do not see how Hebrew is any holier than Urdu, or literary Arabic. Personally I believe that all languages are both holy and beautiful (with the notable exception of Klingon).

Just so folks don't get the wrong idea from Israel's rather chauvinist views, I would like to note that in Judaism there is the principle that "the righteous of all nations will have a place in the world to come." Essentially we are all judged by the goodness of our actions, and not our beliefs. This contrasts with the views of many other religions which are much more harsh toward those who reject their views.

Edit, YOU are truly unworthy of my input Israel! No self esteem issues on my part.

Michael, why take it personal?

It was meant purely constructively. Take it as it was meant.

Who is Herbert, and why was he on 5th - by the park and museum row?

Israel, when you write something like ‘If I was a shrink [sic], I would advise you that you have poor self-esteem’, how is such a comment to be taken other than personally? It's a personal comment. I know that your main point was to affirm that the chosen-ness of the Jewish people does not imply a qualitative difference and hence that it is a mistake to interpret the claim in such a way, but your comment about poor self-esteem simply came across as personally insulting to Michael.

Maybe you should avoid trying to use metaphors. They're getting lost in translation: even from English to English.

John,

In most advanced societies, a doctor of the mind and heart, or in our land of the brave and...a 'shrink' is taboo, and his or her dirty practice is for sickies, and the mentally ill.

How is it perceived in Canada?

I don't think that I have poor self-esteem. Then, again, Rabbi Israel, the famed Baal Shem Tov taught that if you perceive a fault by another, then you have it too, perhaps in a very different degree.

So, it's catchy, John, no?

Your other point about my main point is on target.

Metaphors?? Where fort art thou, o Johnio?

PS I'm still curious about who Herbert is?

>> If the origins of the current square Hebrew alphabet are indeed divine, are we not committing an act against God by using it in such a colloquial manner?

Adam, there is a great book by Zalman Posner of Nashville, called "Think Jewish". It postulates that most Jews in America do no 'think' Jew, for this is a Christian country, albeit very kind.

Divine here is perceived as above everyday life.

Judaism as taught by Chabad is into the here and now, and not in the high heavens.

Hence, using the holy Hebrew square letters is allowed and encouraged. But, "everything was created for His glory". So, these applications must be for the good.

John,

>>> 1. What are the ramifications to Hebrew type design as we practice it, if they indeed have a divine origin?

That it should be practiced with great care, attention to quality in even the smallest detail; that our types should reflect the Lord's glory in both their beauty and utility. <<<

I agree.

>>> my beloved David Jones.

Who is that?

Israel's question
>>> 2. Can we incorporate these divine lessons to improve Hebrew type design?

John: This depends what you mean by lessons.

I mean by lessons the information and knowledge that was gathered when a designer discovered and learned more about the Divine origins of Hebrew letters.

>>> If the letters are of holy origin, and contain within them a spark of the divine, should they be employed in the marketing and sale of various products and services—anything from the latest Hollywood vampire blockbuster, to erotic gay services on the web? (I don't mean to offend, just to make a point)

Adam, holiness is everywhere, even in the gay bars.

I firmly believe that one should condemn the practice, but not the one who practices.

>>> I do not see how Hebrew is any holier than Urdu, or literary Arabic. Personally I believe that all languages are both holy and beautiful (with the notable exception of Klingon).

Adam, all languages are both holy and beautiful, though the forms are shallow.

Yet, most are human-made, but Hebrew is not. The actual language is supra-logical, and its letter forms are like works of art in their depth and meaning.

Don't you see any difference?

Now you have attacked John??? I do not even know him but he has proven, in previous posts, to be eloquent, fair, intelligent and thoughtful.

The fact that you represent yourself with an Alef is repugnant to me! An affront to the alphabet!

>>> might lead you to conclude that only an approach to Hebrew typeface design that incorporates these ideas is valid, that approaches that ignore these ideas are not proper

This is one of your possible conclusions.

I have a different conclusion.

All design is valid, like all good art and music. However, good design imbued with the appropriate "kavanas", intent or inner meaning, can be even better.

Do you see the differences between the two conclusions?

Michael,

I never attacked John! He is far above a feeble attack. I respect him very highly.

I apologize to you that my words were found offensive to you. Perhaps, you put it behind you, make amends, and let bygones be bygones.

Bob Dylan wrote that a poet (it could be an artist or type designer, too) stands outside, above society. That's why he can describe society so well. When you stand outside, above society, you are not affected by occurances in society - he said this, I said that...

>>> I'm of the view that when it comes to creative acts what matters is the thing made, not the things that went through the maker's mind while he was creating it

I agree..."what matters is the thing made".

However, when the things that went through the maker's mind while he was creating it are meaningful, then that which is made is imbued with greater meaning, and hence more attractive.

Personally I do not like Bob Dylan or his views. Nor I yours!

It is not up to me to apologize or forgive!

>>> Just so folks don't get the wrong idea from Israel's rather chauvinist views, I would like to note that in Judaism there is the principle that "the righteous of all nations will have a place in the world to come.

William, are my views "rather chauvinist"?

Isn't chauvinist like the saying "holier than thou"? Condescending. Compartimentalizing others into categorizing?

I try not to be a chauvinist. I try to be open-minded and flexible.

To be a Chabadnik today, one must be flexible, and accepting of others.

Unlike many Reform Jews, I prefer not to only talk the talk, but to walk the walk.

Israel: The actual language is supra-logical, and its letter forms are like works of art in their depth and meaning.

The actual Hebrew language is part of the Canaanite branch of the Semitic language group within the Afroasiatic language family, with characteristics and origins in common with other languages of that branch and group. Most of the other ancient Canaanite languages are extinct, but we have enough literary and archaeological evidence to map their correspondences to contemporary ancient Hebrew. All of them were presumably used for liturgical and other religious purposes at some point, and I'm willing to bet that the speakers and writers of these languages all believed that theirs' was special and held some beliefs about its unique divine or mystical origin. Why? Because that's what people all over the world have done for millennia. Scientific linguistic analysis tells another story, though, which is less to do with uniqueness than with commonality, trade, movements of peoples, etc.

Certain traditions in Jewish thought -- and I know from your previous discussions with William than not all Jews grant these traditions equal significance -- assign to the Hebrew letters -- and I ask again: which forms? -- what might be termed deep meaning, i.e. meaning beyond the sounds that they conventionally represent in written speech. Again, this is not something unique to Judaism. The Germanic tribes assigned magical significance to their runic letters (a belief later adopted by Nazi occultists). The letters of the ancient Irish ogham script are associated with different trees. Gematria, which is central to kabbalah, is also found in ancient Assyrian inscriptions. This is just something that people do: assign extra-linguistic meaning to writing. Sometimes, this contributes to writing as art, but it is also worth pointing out that there are plenty of traditions of calligraphy in which the art is either purely formal or associated with ideas that are not directly linked to religious or mystical beliefs.

I think it was regarding the menfolk of the tribe of Moab - was it, Bill - that King David refused to accept them as converts. Why? They lacked the common Jewish trait of "rachmanut", forgivingness (sic).

They missed out.

In the spirit of forgiveness:

"I apologize to you that my words were found offensive to you. Perhaps, you put it behind you, make amends, and let bygones be bygones."

Your apology comes with strings. I do not see contrition! I have nothing to make amends for!

Sorry John for derailing this thread!

Que sera sera... I tried.

"I knocked on the heart,
But it did not respond."
Dylan

John's post

>>> Israel: The actual language is supra-logical, and its letter forms are like works of art in their depth and meaning.

[John's response:] The actual Hebrew language is part of the Canaanite branch of the Semitic language group within the Afroasiatic language family, with characteristics and origins in common with other languages of that branch and group. ...

===

I was actually referring to the here and now...understand Hebrew today, and discovering about the meanings of its letter forms and parts.

Anyone objective and sensitive would conclude similarly, not just a devotee, even an intelligent person of a different faith.

Israel: In most advanced societies, a doctor of the mind and heart, or in our land of the brave and...a 'shrink' is taboo, and his or her dirty practice is for sickies, and the mentally ill.

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment, but surely the point here is that you, Israel, are not a doctor of the mind and your ‘diagnosis’ of Michael's objection to your special claims for the Hebrew script and language as evidence of ‘poor self-esteem’ was simply insulting. There's no two ways about this, no wiggle room: you insulted Michael and it is up to you, not him, to make amends. I've known Michael on Typophile for a about as long as I have known you, and I don't doubt that he would be willing to accept a contrite apology.

Israel: I was actually referring to the here and now...understand Hebrew today, and discovering about the meanings of its letter forms and parts.

Anyone objective and sensitive would conclude similarly, not just a devotee, even an intelligent person of a different faith.

I'm sorry Israel, but you are talking about particular ‘meanings of letter forms and parts’ that are assigned to Hebrew in the context of particular traditions of the Rabbinic period, and in particular those ideas that relate to the origin of the script and language. You can't dodge now and say that you are only interested in understanding ‘Hebrew today’ when your understanding involves claims about its origin. You have to face the historical linguistic record.

What I see is a language that is closely related to other languages descended from a common mother, and two ancient forms of writing that language: one using letters that are clearly derived from those common to other ancient Canaanite languages, and another using letters that were adopted during the Babylonian exile by the Jews, as their own history records, from the Aramaic script used in Babylon. So I don't see evidence for anything unique or special about Hebrew language or script that isn't just historical mythologising of the kind that occurs in many other literate cultures with complex religious and mystical traditions.

A statement such as this: "Not having a complete picture of both sources of information, secular knowledge is not accurate, because by ignoring religious knowledge, incorrect inferences are made.", which was in your first post, while understandable from someone whose religious beliefs extend to empirical content (i.e., one who could potentially reject evolution in favor of Creation) will be automatically rejected by scientists for one very good reason.

It may be that there is a God. And if there is a God, there is certainly no good reason why He couldn't work miracles.

However, some people in this world are Hindus, because their parents were Hindus. Some people are Buddhists, because their parents were Buddhists. Some are Muslims because their parents are Muslims. And so on and so forth.

It is not unreasonable that there may be a God.

It is unreasonable, however, to uncritically assume that one just happens to have been one of the lucky ones to have been born into the one faith that contains the true message from God.

So, scientists really do have to reject using the local sacred scriptures as a source of knowledge... and it really isn't because religious teachings would trouble their consciences or something like that.

John: >>> Israel: In most advanced societies, a doctor of the mind and heart, or in our land of the brave and...a 'shrink' is taboo, and his or her dirty practice is for sickies, and the mentally ill.

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment, ...

Israel (new):This was incomplete, and an unclear thought.

In the advanced United States, the occupation of the "shrinks" is still viewed as the domain of the mentally ill. They are "medical health professionals", whose goal is to heal the heart and mind, like any physician who heals the body.

Poor self esteem is a common ailment, but in the glorious land of "freedom of speech" its expression does not warrant insults and put downs.

===

John: >>> ...but surely the point here is that you, Israel, are not a doctor of the mind and your ‘diagnosis’ of Michael's objection to your special claims for the Hebrew script and language as evidence of ‘poor self-esteem’ was simply insulting....

Israel (new): Your involvement and brotherly care is sincerely admirable, and worthy of emulation.

Michael, I truly am sorry if my remark hurt your feelings. This was not my intention. Please forgive me.

I mistakenly thought that the phrase "make amends" merely meant "let us be friends again". However, I learned very recently (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amends) that it means more than that: "Compensation for a loss or injury; recompense; reparation. Amends were made for the damage and no charges were filed."

Did you do harm or injury? I clearly did to you, evidenced by your response.

John's post

>>> Israel: I was actually referring to the here and now...understand Hebrew today, and discovering about the meanings of its letter forms and parts.

Anyone objective and sensitive would conclude similarly, not just a devotee, even an intelligent person of a different faith. <<<

John:
>>> I'm sorry Israel, but you are talking about particular ‘meanings of letter forms and parts’ that are assigned to Hebrew in the context of particular traditions of the Rabbinic period... <<<

Israel (new): These comments refer to both recent square letters (the Dead Sea Scrolls featured them too, and they weren't recent) and the "Ktav Ashurite". Btw, "Ktav Ashurite" does not refer to Asyrian, as William suggested. Rather, "Ktav Ashurite" refers to Ashir or wealthy, ie. rich lettering. This is defined in the Talmud for over 2000 years.

>>> ...You can't dodge now and say that you are only interested in understanding ‘Hebrew today’ when your understanding involves claims about its origin. You have to face the historical linguistic record.

Israel (new): I am not dodging, nor saying that. You are.

What I mean is simple. Anyone who simple Hebrew grammar and word structure must confess that no language resembles Hebrew. Scholars may attempt to group it with another set of Canaanite languages, but nowhere is there a language with Hebrew's infrastructure.

If you knew Hebrew intimately, you too would humbly reject "the historical linguistic record".

quadibloc's post

>>> A statement such as this: "Not having a complete picture of both sources of information, secular knowledge is not accurate, because by ignoring religious knowledge, incorrect inferences are made.", which was in your first post, while understandable from someone whose religious beliefs extend to empirical content (i.e., one who could potentially reject evolution in favor of Creation) will be automatically rejected by scientists for one very good reason.

Israel (new): I logically disagree.

>>> It may be ...

It is unreasonable ...

So, scientists really do have to reject using the local sacred scriptures as a source of knowledge... and it really isn't because religious teachings would trouble their consciences or something like that.

Israel (new): Your argument has nothing too do with my postulation.

Science is pure truth. The study of a theory in a controlled environment with controlled sample cases.

Certain "religious teachings" about the structure of a language, and the significance of its letter forms and parts, are in deed "a controlled environment with controlled sample cases".

Yet the preference to reject them is unscientific, on the grounds of its being mere "religious teachings", the realm of the irrational and soothsayers.

I am sorry, but such a response is not the realm of objectiveness and intelligence.

Back to the Topic

In all the Alephs, there are some common elements.

There are empty spaces on both the top and bottom.

There are filled-in spaces, and there are empty spaces. As was explained earlier, the filled-in spaces are three elements: two Yuhd-like forms at the top and bottom of the Aleph, and a Vohv-like center element connecting the two.

But what do the empty spaces signify?

In good graphic art, and in artwork in general, empty spaces are carefully placed to allow the viewers eyes to rest, and study the details of the filled-in areas.

So, the empty spaces are for the filled-in spaces.

Similarly, the concept applies to the Aleph. How so?

Emptiness, or a void, comes as a result of "bittul", or self-negation. Usually, "bittul" results from awareness that something greater than oneself exists, and "nullifies" ones sense of self-importance.

When a human being approaches life with the correct "bittul", life's experiences are different, and ones relationships with family members, friends, and even strangers, is improved.

So, being filled with emptiness, or "bittul", is for the filled-in space, or us.

It was explained earlier that the Aleph represents the union of the Yuhd above, namely G-d, with the Yuhb below, us people. How is this achieved? It is achieved through the Vahv, the middle stem connecting that which is above, ie. spiritual, with that which is below, that which is physical.

But nothing can be truly achieved without the carefully placed empty spaces, representing "bittul". When a person "nullifies" himself or herself, then it is possible to accept, in this case, that which is above.

Really, isn't this true in life, too?

When a person "nullifies" himself or herself, then it is possible to accept another person.

This is the Divine lesson of the Aleph.

Michel's post

>>> According to http://www.mezuzah.net/scripts.html, the talmud tells that the "ktav ashuri" (the "assyrian script") is to be used for mezuzot, tefilin and sifrei torah; the same site shows a sample of "ktav ivri", "hebrew script", which was quite different, and in common usage during the period of the first temple.

Israel (new): First, when the Talmud describes "ktav ashuri", it clearly says it's not the "assyrian script", but that which "rich" (like Ashur or an asher).

Likewise, "ktav ivri" is generic.

>>> Interestingly enough, in this text from the dead sea scrolls, http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_psalm138.html, the tetragrammon is written with a variant of the "ktav ivri" (called "middle hebrew" by the author of the site) whereas the rest of the text is not.

Israel (new): Study closely your exmamples.

The Biblical text from the Dead Sea Scrolls are a variant of the classic Hebrew square letter face. It was not what you call "ktav ivri".

In my view, there are only two groupings: the square letter and the "rich" letter. The script or rounded letter, as in that which is called "Rashi" was created by Bomberg to fit wordy commentaries beside wider Biblical or Talmudic text.

The handwriting fonts or those script faces used in invitations are meant to mimick hand written documents.

In the samples which I saw at Hadassa Hospital in Jerusalem, Israel when I was a child about 40 years ago, the Biblical samples had nikkud, if my memory serves me well.

>>> It is also interesting to compare the "ktav ivri" of http://www.mezuzah.net/scripts.html to the phoenician alphabet, unicode range 10900-1091F, http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10900.pdf.

Your "ktav ivri", like the phoenician alphabet, is very different from the classic Hebrew letter, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls sample.

Just because scholars blabbered this, and even got it printed, is not indicative that it's right.

John Savard's post

>>> ... one just happens to have been one of the lucky ones to have been born into the one faith that contains the true message from God. ...

Lucky is not the right word. A person determines his or her destiny.

We are not like fixed angels, or animals, who have no free choice. We choose to do what we want to do. We learned this cruel lesson from the Nazis in Germany.

Before G-d gave the Torah (from the Hebrew meaning "instruction" [hora'ah הוראה]) through His servant Moses, Moses required the Jews to convert. Why? Weren't they Jewish already?

As an aside, Moses was one of the greatest tzaddikim, outstanding righteous human beings, of all times. He saw from the beginning of time until the end of time (Rashi). Hence, he saw the entire teachings of Torah, including the Oral Law and all its explanations and guidance from the Talmud and works like it.

So, he also saw the teaching of the Bible to be kind to converts, because the Jews too were converts.

The Talmud asserts that every convert is a new person, created on the day of their halachic conversion. So, they have no spirital parents, only physical parents. Their spiritual parents are only our Father who art in heaven. Of course, we must treat them well, for they brought us into this world.

How can one become so knowledgeable in these matters of Torah, 'revealed' and 'hidden', when I am beginning so late in life?

To answer this, one must look at the life of a very simple farmer, a descendant of converts himself, called Akiva. He once spotted water dripping slowly upon a rock, forging a growing hole. He reasoned that if water could penetrate a hardened rock, little by little, then Torah could seep into his brain too.

Beis - the 2nd letter of the Hebrew alphabet

Beis consists of three strokes, like Aleph. One horizontal stroke above, one horizontal stroke below, and one vertical bar connecting them, in the middle.

Here are some examples:

The upper horizontal bar is shortened on both the right and the left. The lower horizontal bar is not. This is very noticeable, because the lower horizontal bar protrudes on the right in comparison to the upper horizontal bar which does not. The differences on the left side is not as pronounced, and often overlooked by unobservant type designers.

To best understand the significance of this Divine design, a short lesson in the order of the supernal spheres, known as the 10 Sephirot follows.

It was not what you call "ktav ivri". [Israel]

I did not say the text was in ktav ivri. What I said is that these four letters (pointed by the arrow)

Michel,

Thank you for correcting me.

I suggested that there are only two styles: one for holy materials, like a Torah Scroll, and another for sacred texts produced on non-holy materials.

The name of G-d may not be written or pronounced correctly. Hence, some defect its spelling, as I do, and others write it on non-holy letters or scribbles, as seen in hon the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Regarding its correct pronounciation, it was reserved for use only in the Holy Temple, for it contains powers to do miracles even by non-holy people.

Our sages obm testify in the Talmud that a certain person, believed by non-Jews to be holy, listened to how the Holy Name was uttered in the Temple. Later, he performed miracles as a result.

Once he showed his followers that he could fly. His teacher Rabbi Yosse was very upset at his arrogance to brag that he was a great miracle worker due to his holiness. So, Rabbi Yosse himself flew above him, unbuttoned himself, and urinated upon him. This impurity caused his student to fall to the ground, making his potential followers to realize his falsehood.

The 10 Sephirot in Hebrew

Here, the top "Sephira" or level is shown too. But in the 3 ordered arrangement, it usually is not featured.

The three columns are called: the right column, the left column, and the special middle column. It is special because it reaches above to the highest level, called Kesser, and to the lowest level, called Malchus.

In the Beis, the opening is on the left, in the middle row, corresponding to Gevurah.

What is Gevurah, and why must it be "nullified" in the Beis?

Gevurah is strickness, and holding back. This is the opposite of Chesed, on the right side. Chesed is kindness, and giving.

Bais is associated with a "bayis", a house in Hebrew. For a house to exist and endure, there must not be Geruvah, but kindness and flexibility.

So, we now understand why the Aleph and Beis are designed in these ways. Unlike in other languages, the overall design teaches an important lesson in life. This is reflective of Hebrew in general, which like Torah combines creativity with instructions.

Israel, how do you translate this:

אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה

[copy-paste from http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/סנהדרין_כא_ב, sanhedrin 21, b]

Israel, your attempts to deny history to bolster your theories are just ludicrous, because the Sages of the Talmud were well aware of this history, and discussed it.

Your claim that "Ashuri" doesn't mean "Assyrian" but "rich" is ridiculous. "Ashuri," Assyrian, begins with the letter aleph, and "ashir", "wealthy," begins with the letter ayin. As you very well know, these are totally different roots, and would have been pronounced differently in ancient Hebrew. The sages would *never* confuse one with the other, or even make a pun like this, because different roots imply totally different etymology. Furthermore I seriously doubt that any of your Chasidic sages have ever made such a claim that "Ashuri" means "rich".

Here is a Talmudic passage on this issue, as translated in the Soncino Talmud from Sanhedrin 21b: "Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally] they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the "hedyototh"? —Rabbi Hisda answers: the Cutheans. And what is meant by Hebrew characters? —Rabbi Hisda said: the libuna'ah script."

This has footnotes explaining that "Ashshurith" means "Assyrian," and that "libuna'ah" means "Rashi: large characters as employed in amulets. R. Tam recognizes "libuna'ah" as an adjective from the name of some locality (Lebanon or Libya?) Another opinion is that libuna'ah is derived from 'lebanah', brick; hence writing found on clay tablets."

The 'clay tablet' reading I think is correct. Michel's example from the dead sea scrolls shows that some at that time regarded the original script of the Torah as more sacred and powerful, and thus used it for the Sacred Name in amulets. Rashi, commenting on the Talmud around 1100, seems to be aware of this practice as well. We now know that in the second century, Jews still knew the ancient script, as the coins minted during the Bar Kochba rebellion, which still survive, are written in the ancient script. And some modern Israeli coins also use it, in tribute to this.

By the way "Cuthean" here is what we call "Samaritan". The Samaritan Bible is written in a script derived from the 'ketav ivri', unlike our current Hebrew script, which is not Hebrew but Aramaic, and originally created by non-Jews.

As Daniel Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." It is just a fact that "Ashuri" means Assyrian, as both the Soncino translation and my Alcaly Hebrew-English Dictionary confirm. "Ashir," "wealthy" is spelled differently and has nothing to do with it. And Aramaic was around from long before the Temple was built.

I know it spoils your theory about the sacred shapes that the Torah was originally not written in our current script but that's the *Rabbinic* view, and scholarly view as well.

If you look at the Wikipedia article on the Hebrew alphabet you will see the clear comparison between paleo Hebrew (ketav Ivri), Aramaic, and modern Hebrew, and see that the shapes of our current characters are derived from the shapes of a non-Jewish script, and not the script in which the Torah was originally written.

Edit: I see Michel has posted the original of the translated passage above—thanks!

Michel,

I think that you found a very good source for our discussion.

Like anything involving understanding Talmud, one must consult the commentary of Rashi, and other sages, to properly arrive at the correct comprehension.

At first glance however a few questions come to mind which I hope are addressed by Rashi:

Sanhedrin 21, b

אמר מר זוטרא

ואיתימא מר עוקבא

בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל

בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש

חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא

בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי

ביררו להן לישראל

כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש

והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי מאן הדיוטות

אמר רב חסדא כותאי

מאי כתב עברית

אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה

What is:

a) כתב עברי

the script called Evri

b) לשון הקודש

the script called Lashon Hakodesh or the Holy Tongue

c) כתב אשורית

the script called Ashurit or "rich"

d) לשון ארמי

the script called Arami or seemingly "Aramaic"

e) כתב עברית

the script called Ivrit or seemingly "Hebrew"

f) כתב ליבונאה

the script called Livoneah or seemingly "?"

related to the meaning of the moon,

or seemingly "Greek"

What does it mean:

a) ביררו להן

b) הניחו להדיוטות

What is the difference between:

a) כתב עברי

b) כתב עברית

c) כתב ליבונאה

Now, let me do research.

As an aside, how did you find Sanhedrin 21, b?

Bill,

I never saw you so worked up about anything, even Caslon.

>>> Your claim that "Ashuri" doesn't mean "Assyrian" but "rich" is ridiculous.

This drasha is from the Talmud. Did the sages know how to spell Hebrew? Did they confuse an Aleph for an Ayin? Or did they know something that you never learned?

Bill,

Your post of William Berkson 15.Jul.2010 7.10am was excellent.

>>> If you look at the Wikipedia article on the Hebrew alphabet you will see the clear comparison between paleo Hebrew (ketav Ivri), Aramaic, and modern Hebrew, and see that the shapes of our current characters are derived from the shapes of a non-Jewish script, and not the script in which the Torah was originally written.

I failed to see how "the shapes of our current characters are derived from the shapes of a non-Jewish script, and not the script in which the Torah was originally written".

Also, placing Rashi script at the crucial juncture between the ancient and modern is laughable. Rashi script was created by David Bomberg the Catholic printer (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bomberg and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72586/Daniel-Bomberg), according to a secular book I read in the nineties.

Is there a different source that ages it that far back? John, did you ever hear this before?

Bill, you have to do better than this. Perhaps, others want to revise history?

William,

>>> This has footnotes explaining that "Ashshurith" means "Assyrian," and that "libuna'ah" means "Rashi: large characters as employed in amulets. R. Tam recognizes "libuna'ah" as an adjective from the name of some locality (Lebanon or Libya?) Another opinion is that libuna'ah is derived from 'lebanah', brick; hence writing found on clay tablets."

Please cite sources.

You say this drasha (ashurit = ashir) is from the Talmud, but you don't cite any passage. Cite the passage or admit you are wrong, please.

Bill,

Spare me some time. I read it about 20 years ago. I think I recall where. Patience.

What about Rashi? ha ha ha

David Hanuel, is Rashi script older than Bomberg, Rashi, or even Moses?

William,

That the Wikipedia article on the Hebrew alphabet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet misspelled the Hebrew words for Hebrew alphabet.

I think John's neice wrote it. The Wikipedia editors can't read Hebrew anyway.

Michel,

First, this section is near the bottom of tractate Sanhedrin, chapter two Kohen Gadol, page 21b. There are only two Rashi comments, explaining the words, 'ktav ivri', and 'livoneah'. Tosefos focuses only upon the phrase, "the script called Livoneah".

Hence, they feel all questions except these are understood.

Lets look at Rabbenu Hananel. The Romm family printers put him on the Talmud's pages, coutesy of the Vatican and much bribery.

Rabbenu Hananel reviews the text in short, and adds that the "Kutho'oy" are those that Rav Hisda asks "Who are the 'hediyotos' (the ordinary or common [unlearned] people) ?

OK, the classic meforshim commentaries in the back, like the Meharsha, Chochmas Shlomo, Maharam, Maharam Shif and others.

I now have done a CD ROM search for the word "ashurit" in in the Talmud, which comes up with 16 hits in the Soncino Talmud (includes footnotes, I think).

Nowhere that I can see has the ridiculous equivalence of ashurit and ashir.

There are two passages in the Talmud Bavli where the issue of ancient Hebrew writing vs the Assyrian script is discussed: Megilah 8b-9a, and the passage given by Michel and me, Sanhedrin 21b, which goes on to 22a—about which more in a moment.

In the passage in Megilah 8b, that two different scripts are discussed is even more clear, but it is rather a rather complex discussion, as they are trying to make sense of an older ruling, which it is clear that they don't totally understand—perhaps because they lost an understanding of 'ketav ivri' as paleo-Hebrew, which the old passage refers to.

In the continuation of the Sanhedrin passage to 22a, there is actually some support for Israel's general view, but not with his ridiculous argument that ashurit = ashir.

Here in 22a, it starts "Why is it called Ashshurith?—Because it came to them from Assyria." There's a recognition of the real history. However, Rabbi (Yehuda haNasi) has an opinion that supports Israel S: "The Torah was originally given to Israel in this [Ashshurith] writing. When they sinned, it was changed to Ro'az. But when they repented, the [Assryian characters] were re-introduced ..."

In other words, Rabbi knows that at one time a different script was used, but he wants to regard the then current one (turn of the third century) as the only sacred one. Thus he says that the original was the Assyrian script, that only after sinning was the paleo-Hebrew--here referred to as Ro'az--introduced. Then after the first temple had fallen because of the Israelite sins, and the Israelites repented, and were allowed to return to Zion, they got back the Assyrian script. So Ezra's institution of writing the Torah in Assyrian characters was a restoration!

Another Rabbi, Shimon ben Eliezer, is quoted as saying the writing never changed at all.

Yehuda haNasi's theory frankly seems forced to me, but he is certainly a great Rabbinic authority, so Israel has license to go his merry way with his theories.

But please, some better scholarship.

Rashi Script
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi_script

"Rashi script (Hebrew: כתב רש"י) is a semi-cursive typeface for the Hebrew alphabet, in which Rashi's commentaries are customarily printed both in the Talmud and Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). This does not mean that Rashi himself used such a script: the typeface is based on a 15th century Sephardic semi-cursive hand and was called by the Ashkenazic Rishonim - the Provencial script. What would be called "Rashi script" was employed by early Hebrew typographers such as Abraham Garton, the Soncino family and Daniel Bomberg, a Christian printer in Venice, in their editions of commented texts (such as the Mikraot Gedolot and the Talmud, in which Rashi's commentaries prominently figure) to distinguish the rabbinic commentary from the text proper, for which a square typeface was used."

According to this, it is from the 15th century, and preexisted Bomberg.

As an aside, how did you find Sanhedrin 21, b? (Israel)

I googled "דעת כתב אשורי" and got the site http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/klli/mdrjim/prjnim_ljon_hqodj_1.html from which I took the reference.

And thanks William for the research.

Bill,

Your post of William Berkson 15.Jul.2010 8.33am was really excellent.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNossi was called simply, "Rebbe". He was a rabbi, par excellance. Many miracles occurred during his lifetime. After his demise, he returned home each Friday night, enclothed in a body, to exempt his family in kiddush. To materialize into a physical body is extra-ordinary of course.

Few rabbis throughout history were such tzaddikim. Moses, Maimonides, Moshe Feinstein, and the late Lubavitcher Rebbe. He was called "the Rebbe" too.

Michel,

Thank you.

As William wrote, I'm skipping on my merry way, or as they say, dancing at a few weddings...

1. How does design learn from the Divine?
2. Sanhedrin 21b understanding
3. Source for Ashurit as Asher or wealthy

I believe the quote from Sanhedrin 21b explains #3. As you see, ktav ivri, ktav ashurit, ktav ivritt, ktav arami, and ktav levoneah, indicates that there are many kinds of writing that differ from each other.

It is clear that ktav ashurit is indeed not at all resembling Assyrian script of Assyria - known as Ashur. Compare. Hence, the Talmud suggests that the Torah scroll may be written in ornate square letters, as Rich Hebrew Lettering, or an ornate form of ancient Greek.

One might laugh, but who laughs last?

>It is clear that ktav ashurit is indeed not at all resembling Assyrian script of Assyria

That is flat wrong. Look at the chart in the Wikipedia article, or any other history of the Hebrew alphabet. You will see that current Hebrew is clearly derived from Assyrian script, as opposed to the Samaritan Hebrew script, which is clearly derived from paleo-Hebrew.

The quotes from the Talmud directly assert that the ketav ashurit comes from Assyria, as do modern scholars. Rabbi doesn't contest that the current script comes from Assyria, he just argues that it was the original script of the Torah, and that the paleo Hebrew was later, and then replaced.

But I give up on trying to clarify this further, as to my eyes you keep introducing new muddles.

ps. Yehudah haNasi's greatness IMHO has nothing to do with fanciful miracle stories dreamed up in the middle ages, but rather with his great actual accomplishments a thousand years before these stories.

William & Michel,

You both make eloquent and robust arguments. Michel's argument and quotation alone (the so-called דעת כתב אשורי), should serve as an indication that the phenomena of perceiving square Hebrew as divine in origin, is a comparatively "modern" phenomena (in the grand scheme of things).

It is also worth noting that Hebrew grammar and structure rules where only established at a much later time, specifically between the 11th to 13th centuries by scholars such as Rabbi David Kimchi (רד"ק) and Iben Ezra. These scholars who were based in Muslim Spain, based most of their preliminary work in Hebrew grammar and structure, on Islamic traditions in the linguistic structural analysis of Arabic. Thus, our modern understanding of Hebrew owes to scholarly work done in Arabic, and the application of those rules and concepts the Hebrew. So, if Hebrew is so divine, how come decoding its structure required Arabic (and Islamic scholars).

I have though some experience, through a short past stint in a yeshiva, of the kind of mindset that we are dealing with in Israel's case. You can talk reason, logic, and proof until you are blue in the face, and you would have accomplished absolutely nothing (that is unless you are a great Mekubal, in which case no logical arguments are needed, just directives). You are talking about historical documentation and proof to a person who literally believes that the world is 5770 years old, and reject the theory of evolution. So, you really think that you can persuade him that Hebrew did not come directly from God's FontLab Studio?

My young daughter though seems to have the best reply for Israel:

"Moses supposes his toeses are roses
But Moses supposes erroneously
for nobody's toeses are posies of roses
As Moses supposes his toeses to be."

Israel: Anyone who simple Hebrew grammar and word structure must confess that no language resembles Hebrew. Scholars may attempt to group it with another set of Canaanite languages, but nowhere is there a language with Hebrew's infrastructure.

So you say, and yet linguists are able to produce comparative grammars of Semitic languages and, as Adam pointed out, the systematic analysis of Hebrew grammar that began in the Middle Ages relied heavily on Islamic scholarship and methods used to describe the grammar of Arabic. On the etymological front, Assyrian, which is generally regarded as the oldest identifiably Semitic language, has long been used to resolve issues in Hebrew lexicography.

Myths are interesting things. In one cultural context they represent the important stories that a society tells to itself to make sense of its experience of the world. In another cultural context, one informed by scientific methodology and critical analysis, they represent wishful thinking.

Adam,

I think that your daughter שתחיו-ה may have a great future as a poetess. Her stage name should be Roberta Dylana.

The Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi) did not establish Hebrew grammar. He derived the rules from seforim, holy Jewish books, like the Bible and the Talmud.

Most everything that he wrote is considered accurate. There are different ways to define the same results.

Where did you go to yeshiva? Mir of Jerusalem?

The age of the universe is still undetermined according to modern science. It used to be in the millions. Then, it reached the billions. Perhaps, in another decade or two, it'll be in the trillions. Let's just believe that Wikipedia created a big bang long ago and far away.

Dinosaurs? They were cold blooded when I was in diapers. Now, they are warm-blooded. Soon, we beam down Barney Rubble and learn that they didn't have blood.

What revolve around what? The sun, earth, moon, or stars? Again, there are equally mathematically valid yet different ways to define the same results.

Did you see Acher eating a sandwich on Yom Kippur while riding a horse? How about Marcus Jastrow?

I take it that you don't kiss the hands of every Mekubal that you meet.

Israel: ... word structure ... no language resembles Hebrew. Scholars may attempt to group it with another set of Canaanite languages, but nowhere is there a language with Hebrew's infrastructure.

John: So you say...

Please cite one language since the creation of the universe besides Hebrew which is completely logically structured where:
1. Each word has a 3 letter root
2. the order of the 3 letters defines slightly different meanings
3. Grammar and tense are determinedntelligentlu by a set of modifier letters, positioned at particular places of the word root to define that word, its grammatical state, and tense
4. Contains a super-logical system where the numberical values of that word corresponds intelligently to other words of similar values

Betcha can't name one.

Israel, your points 1, 2 and 3 are a perfect description of Arabic. Ironically, I've had Arabs describe the uniqueness of their language to me in exactly the same terms as you describe the uniqueness of Hebrew. Of course, Arabs and Jews who actually talk to each other discover that their languages are full of similarities.

Your point 4 is something I do not consider an aspect of the language: it is an aspect of hermeneutic gematria, and like other ‘hidden language codes’ it relies on interpretative associations that are reinforced by belief in the system.

no language resembles Hebrew (Israel)

Did you ever have a look at the Mesha Stele; have a look at this page מצבת_מישע which is very nicely presented. The language is moabite. You get the text in original paleo-hebraic script, the same in square hebrew, and then the details.

John: Israel, your points 1, 2 and 3 are a perfect description of Arabic. etc.

I am very impressed with this statement.

In truth, these three points are solely based in great human intelligence, but not in supra-natural aspects unique to the Divine.

#4 however is.

I disagree that "hermeneutic gematria" (as you call it) is the subjective realm of the devotee.

Rather, one language's success in it more than another's failure depends upon the choice of words, or its vocabulary. This is Divine, as we see Adam named the animals; Nachmonides comments that this was an act of Divine Inspiration.

Michel,

>>< Did you ever have a look at the Mesha Stele; have a look at this page מצבת_מישע which is very nicely presented. The language is moabite. You get the text in original paleo-hebrew script, the same in square hebrew, and then the details. <<<

What script was used by the Moabites themselves?

Dear Adam,

G-d uses the new version of Fontographer 5.

Fontographer 5 now has every feature you need; Volt is for the smart stuff.

FontLab Studio is for those geeks and nerds who want its unique features. We'll keep it alive for another decade - its got a customer base.

Sincerely,

Friends of FontLab

@gohebrew:
There are too many unique qualities found in Hebrew letter forms which can not be ignored by the intellectually honest person.

I'm afraid that I can't even imagine what such qualities might be that they would not only suggest a divine origin, but do so strongly enough that persons outside the Jewish linguistic, religious, and cultural community would have to admit these qualities make such a claim worthy of consideration. I don't think it would be intellectually dishonest to demand extremely strong evidence before beginning to consider that kind of possibility.

John,

Do you how your definition prevents any letter forms from displaying a divine origin?

Well, if a letter form was 3D, and appeared correctly on one side, like the Aleph (of the very first word Anochi, I, in the First Commandment), yet when you flipped the stone over, that Aleph also appeared correctly.

Perhaps, there you would agree that it must have a Divine origin.

And the 'X'?????

X is a letter which according to many designs is reversable, and retains its same appearance, as before it was reversed.

The letters of the Ten Commandments, though, were special.

They were carved in stone, appeared hollow forms. If you viewed the square tablet (Chazal assert that it was square without rounded tops as the Christians portray it), the very same image was seen on either side. Even the part of the final mem, which had a solid stone middle, was suspended in air as Moses moved.

But, very likely, scoffers will reject this description, claiming that it was an optical allusion, and the final mem used an early form of silly putty. :)

John S.,

If I wasn't Jewish, this claim that Hebrew had a divine origin would audacious to begin with.

After all, the source for this contention is in the very books of the Jews. Isn't this a partial source?

But, if I am an intellectually honest person, as a significant portion of the greatest, most intelligent, non-Jews have been, I would review and carefully analyze the facts.

I then, if I rejected the assertion, would refute the facts, and not merely make non-intellectual statements.

"It has a divine origin."
"It does not have a divine origin."
"Does too."
"Does not."
"Chocolate"
"Vanilla."

can you recreate this effect, with lets say a 3D modualing program????

But what if I made this with Hebrew glyphs?

Eli,

I see why not.

With certain cell phones, by rotating the cell phone, the screen rotates. I assume through weights and software, the same can be done on one side or another.

The kuntz (novelty) here was that it occured at all times, and you could see through the hollow spaces.

After all, Eli, some things are miraculous. We are Jews, after all.

Hi Tom,

Welcome to these blogs.

I like your typeface, and its matching of Hebrew with English.

Many years ago, I tried this too with Broadway and Purim Party, as Broadway had thick vertical strokes. It worked, but few Latin typefaces have thick vertical strokes.

>After all, Eli, some things are miraculous. We are Jews, after all.

so one would have to first agree on this axiom, to take it as proof,
if one dows not believe in this, it would'nt be hard proof.
me and you are jew and believe, but if allready believing, we don't need this proof as well, we already belive that the hebrew forms are of devine origin...

Yes, the Talmud declares that both the Hebrew language and its letter forms are unlike their counterparts among the other nations of the world. The Zohar and other books of kabballah cite numerous examples. I repeated some here in this blog.

Of course, we preach not to the converted.

Simply, as one type designer to another, I find these citings universally interesting.

However, like other matters that I have raised here, such as an advanced OpenType font which will automatically add Hebrew grammar markings, like John Hudson's SBL font automatically adds a furtive patach where it belongs, I have met much resistance.

But, overcoming diversity makes one more resilient.

furtive patach and furtive ayin its not realy a grammer issue.
if a patah is under the last letter like תפוח, יהושע, then its treated like a patah on the letter before the last.

Eli,

I know.

But the very same software code in Volt can do the same for every Hebrew grammar issue.

For this, John can go to sleep happy tonight.

I think John clearly stated his opinion that this should be done at the character level ant not on the OT level.

If so, why did he bother with the furtive patah??
the ansawr is, because just like a holam male and haser witch both hav a unicode values the difference is on the positioning placement, so for a furtive patah he placed the Patah back under the right lege of the HET.

But physically changing a glyph to another, he thinks this should be done at the character level..

maybe I'm wrong, maybe his reasoning was the mount of complexity of the shava na\nach compared to furtive patah witch is very siple look up and can never be wrong, its absolute. but i don't think that would be the difference.

we would have to ask him, himself. :)

On most things I agree with John. Here I disagree.

This is a matter of pure practicality.

I believe that teachers and students studying Hebrew grammar would be best suited if it easy to do.

He is speaking on principle only. Like no Unicode for a shva-na. Principle.

How 'bout a shvah-nah code in Unicode like kamatz katan? Why not delete the code for a kamatz katan? How 'bout those billion Arabic presentation glyphs. Principle, you say?

I think the Unicode Consortium make up their rules before each session.

I think that the Unicode for Burmese, for example, should follow the normal practice for Burmese character sets, instead of trying to be a sterling example of Unicode purism - when other languages have more easily usable representations because they are more glyph-oriented.

And if Arabic can get glyphs for its initial, medial, final, and isolated forms in a special region of Unicode, clearly other languages from which glyphs are excluded for good reason should also get that treatment as well.

Of course, while Unicode is nice, it's not really what people want. What they want is something nice and simple to use - something that is, in essence, 16-bit ASCII. And in order to keep all the world's languages, with generous use of glyphs, within 16 bits... CJK characters (and other large-set characters, such as cuneiform and hieroglyphics) would be made from two consecutive 16-bit characters, much as they used to be made from two consecutive 8-bit characters.

And if Arabic can get glyphs for its initial, medial, final, and isolated forms in a special region of Unicode, clearly other languages from which glyphs are excluded for good reason should also get that treatment as well.

Arabic Presentation Forms in Unicode are for backward comparability with older encodings to allow round trip conversion between those encodings and Unicode without loss of data (that was the idea back then, at least), and since they violate Unicode principle for not encoding presentation forms, their use in text input is discouraged and currently are only used internally be legacy, pre-smartfont text renderers. As such, no more Arabic presentation forms are allowed into Unicode, see: http://unicode.org/faq/middleeast.html#1. It is no different from the various f-ligatures encoded into Unicode for the same backward comparability reasons, or even pre-composed accented characters (no new pre-composed characters allowed into Unicode if it can be composed from existing accents and base glyphs, but it is a slightly different issue).

Khaled,

Welcome to this discussion!

---

First, thank you for your explanation about Arabic Presentation Forms in Unicode "to allow ... conversion ... without loss of data".

In my opinion, this is a valid justification to break Unicode rules, as the whole purpose of Unicode is to prevent the "loss of data".

In Hebrew, there is a widely used glyph for a common Hebrew grammatical form, known as the shvah-na ('shvah' refers to a slightly pronounced syllable, and 'na' simply means 'traveling' or 'transitional', as opposed to 'nach', which means 'resting' or 'stationary').

Most every Hebrew prayerbook, even today, and a frequently studied book of wise teachings ('Chapters of the Fathers') features this stand-alone glyph, yet the Unicode Consortium fails to this day to assign it a code.

What do you think?

---

Can any set of letter forms have a divine origin?

How can it be logically shown, or proved?

I tried to shown that a series of letters, in different designs, had a group of qualities, indicating that this language's set of letter forms were unique. I suggested that this was tangible evidence that its origin was divine, or supra-natural.

What do you think?

"to allow ... conversion ... without loss of data"
That is a misquote, what I said is round trip conversion between those encodings and it is meant literally, what is meant by loss of data here is failure to reproduce a 100% identical copy of the original text when converted back from Unicode to the original encoding as a way to encourage national bodies to endorse Unicode knowing that they can fallback to whatever they were using before Unicode, i.e. it is a mere political decision and nothing else. In reality, those legacy encodings and the software that uses them (I've never seen one) are long dead and nobody cares about it any more.

Khaled,

If I understand you correctly, there is no justification anymore for the Unicode values of the Arabic Presentation Forms. Am I correct?

If so, why must the UTC offer them anymore?

There is no way a character encoded in Unicode be "retracted" later on, once in always in. Unicode can, however, deprecate such a character in the since that no one is encouraged to use it, which is already the case here.

If I had a typewriter that could type in Arabic, I could use it to make a chart of the different forms of Arabic letters.

Actually, that oversimplifies, since, for example, the IBM Arabic type elements got by with just two forms, not four, of each Arabic letter. Thus, in general, the initial form of a letter was provided, and not the medial form, because the connector between letters was always attached to the first (rightmost) letter of two letters in text. But I do think that if only for that reason, there should be a codepoint for every glyph, although not necessarily for every overstrike.

Also, I know I've seen complaints from users of Burmese that they now have (post-Unicode) encodings that include extra presentation forms, because implementing full Unicode support for their language is awkward - and, elsewhere, it's been noted that the Unicode rules on not including unnecessary characters are generally only strictly observed in the case of languages that are less "economically important". I don't approve of that kind of a two-tier system.

from:
http://www.inner.org/hebleter/alef.htm

The Hebrew Letters
Alef: The Paradox of God and Man

The alef is formed by two yuds, one to the upper right and the other to the lower left, joined by a diagonal vav. These represent the higher and lower waters and the firmament between them, as taught by the Ari z"l ("Rabbi Isaac Luria of blessed memory," who received and revealed new insights into the ancient wisdom of Kabbalah)

Water is first mentioned in the Torah in the account of the first day of Creation: "And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water." At this time the higher and the lower waters were indistinguishable; their state is referred to as "water in water." On the second day of Creation God separated the two waters by "stretching" the firmament between them.

In the service of the soul, as taught in Chassidut, the higher water is water of joy, the experience of being close to God, while the lower water is water of bitterness, the experience of being far from God.

In Jewish philosophy, the two intrinsic properties of water are "wet" and "cold." The higher water is "wet" with the feeling of oneness with the "exaltation of God," while the lower water is "cold" with the feeling of separation, the frustration of experiencing the inherent "lowliness of man." Divine service, as taught by Chassidut, emphasizes that in fact the primary consciousness of both waters is the sense of the Divine, each from its own perspective: from the perspective of the higher water, the greater the "exaltation of God," the greater the oneness of all in His Absolute Being; from the perspective of the lower water, the greater the "exaltation of God," the greater the existential gap between the reality of God and that of man, thus the inherent "lowliness of man."

The Talmud tells of four sages who entered the "Pardes," the mystical orchard of spiritual elevation reached only through intense meditation and Kabbalistic contemplations. The greatest of the four, Rabbi Akiva, said to the others before entering, "When you come to the place of pure marble stone, do not say 'water-water,' for it is said, 'He who speaks lies shall not stand before my eyes.'" The Ari z"l explains that the place of "pure marble stone" is where the higher and the lower waters unite. Here one must not call out 'water-water,' as if to divide the higher and lower waters. "The place of pure marble stone" is the place of truth--the Divine power to bear two opposites simultaneously; in the words of Rabbi Shalom ben Adret: "the paradox of paradoxes." Here "the exaltation of God" and His "closeness" to man unite with the "lowliness of man" and his "distance" from God.

The Torah begins with the letter beit: "Bereishit (In the beginning) God created the heavens and the earth." The Ten Commandments, the Divine revelation to the Jewish People at Sinai, begin with the letter alef: "Anochi [I] am God your God who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The Midrash states that "higher reality" had been set apart from "lower reality," for God had decreed that neither higher reality descend nor lower reality ascend. In giving the Torah, God annulled His decree, He Himself being the first to descend, as it is written: "And God came down on Mount Sinai". Lower reality, in turn, ascended: "And Moses approached the cloud...." The union of "higher reality," the upper yud, with the "lower reality," the lower yud, by means of the connecting vav of Torah, is the ultimate secret of the letter alef.

FORM

A yud above and a yud below with a vav separating and uniting them simultaneously. The secret of the image in which man was created.

Worlds:

The upper and lower waters with the firmament between them.

In the world:

The upper atmosphere, the lower atmosphere, the ocean & water table.

Energy waves, the atmosphere, the hydrological cycle.

In the human body:

The respiratory system, the diaphragm, the digestive system .

The skull-water, the membrane, the brain-moisture.

Souls:

Feeling both close to God and distant from Him with commitment to Torah and mitzvot balancing these emotions.

"Crying is enwedged in my heart on one side, while joy is enwedged in my heart on the other side."
Divinity:

Transcendent and Immanent Light with the contraction (tzimtzum) and impression (reshimu) between them.

Man in perfect unity with the Infinite Will of God.

NAME

Oxen; thousand; teaching; master.

Worlds:

Oxen--gross physical reality, the lower animal soul.

Thousand--multiplicity in Creation, the "thousand mountains grazed by the ox."

The yoke of the ox yielding a thousandfold and returning to unity.

Souls:

"I will teach you wisdom"; the root of the soul is derived from the wisdom of God.

Direct insight of Divine truth; to be nothing.

Divinity:

"Master of the universe."

The Divine "One" revealing itself throughout the plurality of Creation.

NUMBER

One

Worlds:

First of all countable numbers.

The beginning of process in nature and sequence of worldly events.

One counts "something from something."

Souls:

"One nation in the land."

The organic unity of all Jewish souls.

One counts "something from nothing."

Divinity:

"God is One": the absolute unity of God.

"There is none other besides Him:" "One, single, and unique."

One counts "nothing from something